• OntologicalTree (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cblackbu1 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

KlayCax and OntologicalTree have very similar editing styles. They're both almost totally focused on circumcision related articles. OntologicalTree made ten quick edits to non protected pages so he could jump into editing a semi-protected page 36 minutes after making an account. Other similarities I'll write below:

Overuse of Minor Edits

A quick view of OntologicalTree's edits and KlayCax's edits shows a preponderance of minor edits that aren't minor. For example [1] and [2].

Common use of 'trim' and 'verbose' in edit summaries

OntologicalTree likes to use 'trim' 3 times at [3], [4], and [5], and uses 'verbose' 3 times here [6] and [7]. KlayCax uses 'trim' 12 times in [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] etc, and uses 'verbose' 2 times in [16] and [17].

Using the same studies

Both users refer to Morris and Cox's studies to dispute the ridged band here [18] and here [19]. They both also keep referring to Morris in their edit summaries, although obviously this isn't a slam dunk.

el al.

OntologicalTree's new account already used it twice in summaries here [20] and here [21]. KlayCax used it 12 times, for example here [22] and here [23].

Cblackbu1 and possible false canvassing

Cblackbu1 made a report about outside canvassing here [24]. Like I posted in the talk page (Redacted) I think it's reasonable to check to see if KlayCax is the owner of Cblackbu1. Stix1776 (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If unlikely, then I'll drop it. Sorry to waste everyone's time. Maybe I was just paranoid. Stix1776 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Hey! Saw that I got tagged in this and I wanted to clear some things up.

• First of all, CBlackBu1 and the rest are simply not my accounts.

• A checkuser will see that I briefly edited this account on a university internet connection between the creation of my account and December 2021. As explained in earlier comments on here, I also contributed on it under the name of AxiosDrive; this account is retired, permanently inactive, and followed Wikipedia's guidelines on alternative accounts while it was active.

• I'll respond in more detail when I get back tonight to the specific allegations and "coincidences" Stix1776 is claiming.

Update: Checkuser has already been performed. So realize that this part has become somewhat redundant. KlayCax (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm willing to provide IRL information to verify my identity and establish that I'm an individual person between me and CBlackBu1/OntologicalTree — if it is needed or requested. Thanks! KlayCax (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stix1776, please consider reading through WP:OUTING. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed with Primefac; you need to review this policy page before creating any more discussions or reports. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry. I didn't think that linking a private reddit profile would fail OUTING, but I'll be more careful in the future. Stix1776 (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - Please compare KlayCax and OntologicalTree, per the evidence in the filing. I don't think there is enough evidence to endorse a check on Cblackbu1. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Unlikely - different devices, different IPs, the different in the former potentially explaining the difference in the latter but the point being there is no smoking gun. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing without action given the CU result. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

• ShirtNShoesPls (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

ShirtNShoesPls (SNSP) is a new account, created on 7 November during a one-week block on KlayCax's (KC) account. Since then, SNSP has made over 40% of their edits to pages edited by KC (log). The overlap is primarily in three contentious topics: current American politics, genitalia/circumcision, and Catholic-LGBT issues. In each of these spaces, both KC and SNSP take what might be considered a "liberal" view. A review of editing times (KC, SNSP) reveals substantial overlap. For a new editor, SNSP is familiar with concepts like RFCs and false balance. Like KC, SNSP likes pushing the 3RR limit. Two other editors, including the admin who blocked KC, have endorsed this SPI's opening. (One of them also mentioned another editor who seems similar in naming conventions and behavior to SNSP, but this third account's interactions make me feel like they are most likely unrelated.) ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the prior investigation, the word "trim" came up. Tenuous, but SNSP has also used it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: thanks for endorsing but when you said that makes it likely that they are a new user, did you mean "makes it unlikely"? Sorry to ping. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Willing to privately share my IRL picture if needed. The only thing I did is follow a user's edits to further make contributions.

Checkuser me with StardustToStardust and KlayCax. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KlayCax stated he would give "provide IRL information to verify my identity" a year ago when a situation like this arose. Could you give a picture of yourself holding up a sign of your username? I will do same. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am checking on the status of @KlayCax block since they were called on to respond in an important talk page discussion and RfC still ongoing. When will their block expire and the user be allowed to respond to the material on the RfC? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies if this is not the correct place to ask this question. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a provisional comment before I step out (may clerk this later, may not), I agree with Pbritti that there isn't a strong case for Prcc27's suggestion of StardustToStardust (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). EIA shows at least two direct conflicts between KC and STS, and while "3D chess" sockuppetry like that does happen, it's quite rare, so we'd need very strong evidence to pursue an investigation on that front. No comment for now on the main allegation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• SNSP's account was created on 7 November through an account creation request, and after a few weeks' dormancy they dove immediately into hot-button areas. At a minimum, that makes it unlikely that they are a new user. Between the topic-area overlap (relatively distinctive although far from dispositive) and similar writing styles, I see a plausible case that this is sockpuppetry—about 50/50. That is enough to justify a check, so  Clerk endorsed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC) corrected per Pbritti 04:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• KlayCax and ShirtNShoesPls are very  Unlikely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks, Callan. @ShirtNShoesPls: Have you ever edited Wikipedia under another username or as an unregistered (IP) user? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Both.

  I edited Wikipedia articles for high school. It was often assigned by my teacher for an AP class. I have not had access or used the account for years. It was for a computer lab class.

  We'd be given a subject to chose from and we'd have to expand the article to the best of our abilities for credit. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ShirtNShoesPls: Do you recall your past username, and if so are you willing to share it? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 08:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can email you the high school. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ShirtNShoesPls: The high school name won't elucidate much. Is there a reason you can't share the account's name? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The username is very close to my full legal name. (Essentially, I'm afraid I will be doxed or otherwise retaliated against.) ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've thought about this and talked to a few others. Among the three accounts under discussion, something feels off here, but there's nothing I can action at this time. So closing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

• DerApfelZeit (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• OntologicalTree (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

KlayCax (KC) was an editor who was mainly focused, among other topics, on circumcision-related articles (stats). He had also received a topic-ban in August 2024. DerApfelZeit (DAZ) was created on November 3 2024 and begun the first edit-war on November 10, three months after KC's latest activity. Already, DAZ showcases exceptional familiarity with wikipedia, particularly in the articles where KC was previously active (despite claiming ten-year absence). Their overlap (EI) so far covers a wide range of topics and raises justified suspicions.

KC had a tendency of boldly and persistently removing large amounts of content, or completely clearing pages, with the pretext of moving or merging articles:

• In 2022, KC created Views on circumcision and in 2023 proceeded to 'merge' (diff) the older Ethics of circumcision into it, essentially deleting the old article, since its content had not actually moved. This was also pointed out at the talk, where he insisted on the move.
• On February 2024, KC cleared the article Genital modification and mutilation with the pretext of 'merging' it (diff). Same month KC again proposed a move request (diff). DAZ on Nov 2024 says I may submist a move request... (diff).
• On Nov 10 2024, DAZ created Views on genital modification (now deleted) and proceeded to delete content from the original article with the pretext of 'moving' it into the new one (diff, diff). They had already edit-wared in this article, removing 17K and 13K bytes of content with just their 7th and 10th edit respectively. This bold editing behavior was almost exclusively showcased by KC in these articles (comparison)

• DAZ's new article is evidently exceptionally well-written and sourced for a new editor, serving the same purpose as KC's article, with a language very reminiscent of his. KC: ...has played a significant cultural, social, and religious role...This has subsequently led to differing viewpoints..., DAZ: Cultures, religions, and societies hold many views on.... The distinction between genital enhancement and genital mutilation, added there by DAZ (diff), was first introduced by KC on July 2024 (diff)
• These articles, despite their somewhat controversial nature, were still relatively obscure, meaning they did not get as much attention. KC was the only editor who excibited such a persistent and strong opinion about these issues and would always come back to instigate editwars, every few months or even years later. (GMM, Talk:GMM). Basically, here DAZ continues what KC left behind in spring 2024.

Talkpages/Edit summaries

• When opening discussions, KC had a tendency of @pinging several editors on top to get their attention and possibly gather support for their edits (KC) (DAZ) (OT)
• The same rationale of 'systemic bias', older editors' 'conflict of interest' etc. (random example from KC: diff, DAZ: diff)
• The same rationale of WP pushing "Western, left-wing, autonomy, secular etc." viewpoints (KC: diff, diff; DAZ; diff)
• Female Genital Mutilation: both explicitly oppose the religious justification in the lead: KC: diff, DAZ: diff
• After their first editwar, DAZ rushed to complain about circumcision-related articles at the same editor's talkpage, like KC used to (comparison). It is exceptionally suspicious that a new user would open up so fast to an editor right after their first editwar, unless they were already familiar with the area. Besides that, their comments essentially say the same things (complain about the nature of some articles and other editors) using similar tone and language.
• The excessive roleplay as a German (like this diff), which feels a bit random, raises even more suspisions, as KC had also edited in the German wikipedia too (contribs)

Note: In case the technical evidence is insufficient for whatever reason, there is still much behavioral evidence, not presented so far, which if/when evaluated together with the above, per WP:DUCK, would effectively leave little to no room for doubt. Piccco (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OntologicalTree (OT) was active since March 2022 editing exclusively alongside KC on circumcision and reproductive anatomy articles (EI). They stopped on February 2023 at ~250 edits. OT was suspected as a sock, but no action was taken then. The sudden resurgence of OT on November 2024 (+ ~200 edits), the same time as DAZ, and three months after KC's topic ban, now makes the connection certain.

• On November 4 2024, the newly created DAZ complained 3 times about the lack of genocide mentions in Australia (diff, diff, diff) calling it Whitewashing. Since they didn't yet have permission to edit the article, they remembered their old sock, OT, inactive since February 2 2023, who returned on November 7 2024 to readd this in Australia (diff): Restored material removed in an apparent attempt to whitewash Australia's history, utilizing the same source (Australian Museum) that DAZ proposes in all three of their messages.

This also connets them to KC who was initially negative about mentions of indigenous genocide in USA (see random talkpage:diff, more discussions) saying that Other Anglophonic countries (Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) exclude mentions of "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" from their articles. He later balanced things out by adding similar mentions in the Canada article (diff) and had since then a strong opinion about this. After some editwaring (diffs), OT even opened an RfC.

• OT's last TP message was a "complain" by KC, intended to deflect suspisions, similar to how on Nov 11, DAZ referenced a discussion initiated by KC (diff) saying that Another editor made similar observations a few months ago.

The sanction-free OT could also evade the American politics topicban (RP, RP talk, DP, Washing. etc.) At the first SPI, KC confirms to have used "university internet". Per the CU result, they were indeed using different devices, apparently to appear unrelated to OT. I wouldn't be surprised if a CU is again inconclusive, although this time their shared overlap on a wide range of topics (from circumcision and reproductive anatomy to genocides etc), strong behavioral evidence, and recent perfect timing proves that the trio KC-OT-DAZ is indeed related (SOCK or MEAT). Piccco (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @TheresNoTime thanks for reviewing the case. Yes, I decided to present the strongest evidence that made the socking activity pretty obvious. There's indeed more evidence which I chose not to add keeping it for possible future socks, as it is common in SPIs. Of course if you need further confirmation, it could be provided. Piccco (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC) (moved from "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments" section) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• This is a bit too much of a text wall as far as SPIs are concerned but the KC has a habit of interacting with their socks reminds me of the now-blocked ShirtNShoesPls account that I reported here. KC ended up testifying against that account at ANI, which surprised me. Maybe it was a bit of 4-D chess, but I wouldn't discount the possibility that there are multiple passionate novice editors in these subject areas. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the feedback, but since I remember this case, despite the initial suspicious behavior, SNS ended up having a completely different POV (the opposite, actually) than KC-OT-DAZ at the end. As I said below, there's also more evidence for the KC-DAZ connection that I didn't bring it up because it's too much in this page so far. Piccco (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Ok, that's a good point. I also just looked back at the archive. I'd favor someone with the relevant tools and experience chasing this a little further. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Check declined by a checkuser - socks for comparison are very likely to be  Stale, so this is going to have to be a  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation case. @Piccco: What you've provided so far seems fairly robust, but you mentioned you may have more behavioural evidence? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Confirmed to each other
  • DerApfelZeit (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • OntologicalTree (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • OrangeSharp (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  I will block these three. Left at checked for arbitrary others to see if these are the master. Izno (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I am thoroughly convinced after comparing editing styles. Other admins/clerks should feel free to reach out if they'd like to discuss my analysis. (Obligatory compliance note that this analysis relies purely on public evidence.) Blocking. Tagging OT as CU master, DAZ and OS as confirmed to them, all as suspected to KC. Marking closed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing the archive with new behavioral findings in mind, I also find it considerably more likely than not that StardustToStardust (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and ShirtNShoesPls (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are sox of KlayCax. Tagging as suspected. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

• RomanianObserver41 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

RomanianObserver (RO) was created in 29 November, 10 days after OntologicalTree's latest edits and is perfectly familiar with editing, sourcing, WP policies, focusing on European/American politics, combined with particularly strong opinions in articles related to reproductive anatomy and mostly circumcision (compare old SPIs)

• Human penis: strongly concerned with circumcision (compare overlap); among others, both added:

Prevalence in lead: KC (diff), RO (diff) Nearly half the world's men... (lying about alleged consensus (diff) was typical of KC, see also below)

RO writes: The penis also plays a role in cultures. (diff); a typical KC phrase (see old SPI, bullet 4)

• Brian Earp: both concerned with his stances on circumcision, even making identical additions (overlap)

KC (diff) added Criticism section Wesley Smith [...] harshly criticized Earp's writings on circumcision [...] are intended to: Ultimately... attack... religious freedom and impos[e] a[n] utilitarian secularist cloak over all of society ,

RO (diff) added Reception section Wesley J. Smith has strongly criticized Brian Earp's paper [...] Earp's arguments are "aimed, ultimately, at attacking religious freedom and imposing a utilitarian secularist cloak over all of society

See also: KC: Earp's writings [...] misrepresent the scientific consensus; RO: Earp is opposed to circumcision [...] and has questioned the scientific consensus

It's worth noting that KC had once blanked this article entirely (diff) as they would do with pages they didn't like (see latest SPI), while as it appears by RO's 18 edits (!) and TP discussions, they have a particularly strong opinion about it. This is a very low-visibility article making it weird that it would get so much identical attention from these accounts.

• ShirtNShoesPls (another sock that I didn't pay attention to initially) felt strongly about adding neo-fascist (diff), fascist-inspired (diff) etc. in the lead of Brothers of Italy as primary ideology (see all activity notice the lying about "consensus"), RO did the same adding neo-fascist and post-fascist (diff).

• RO randomly mentions FGM in an edit-summary (diff); as you can see in the latest SPI, KC was concerned with that article too (see also activity)

Note that the user has a history of roleplaying and even using different devices to get away with socking in the past (as mentioned in the latest SPI); I wouldn't be surprised if the technical evidence seemed inconclusive, although the recent timing and the combination of identical edits/language in some specific articles, per WP:DUCK, are strong indicators. Tagging also Tamzin who thoroughly reviewed the case last month. Piccco (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Would it be too much for admins to review what happened with Cblackbu1? Both KC [25] [26], and RO [27], like to use the idea of off wiki canvassing to edit war. I got a topic ban for OUTING, but the likelihood that KC was responsible is considerably higher now.Stix1776 (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC) (moved from above to "Comments by other users" section) Piccco (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Technically likely to recent socks, particularly OntologicalTree and DerApfelZeit. Izno (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

• SongingSiren (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ( Clerk note: original case name)

• Veni Vidi changed it on Wiki (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

This revision on Freedom Party of Austria is incredibly suspicious and extensive for a supposedly brand new account. It's particularly suspicious that the revision itself is identical to the previous one from User:SongingSiren. It seems highly likely to me that the account is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, and that User:Veni Vidi changed it on Wiki is WP:NOTNEW. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

That account is mine: I apologize. He is correct that Veni Vidi changed it on Wiki is me. I did not read the rules surrounding multiple accounts when I created the second account and wrongly assumed that accounts that were obvious or stated alternative accounts were okay.

The single edit I made on the account was the edit he mentioned.

I will not use it anymore.

Veni Vidi changed it on Wiki was obviously me, I thought it was immediately clear that I was such, and I further didn't know that it was a rule violation at the time. I will only use SongingSiren from here on out. I messed up bad and I'm sorry. I'll read the rules in better detail. Could I remain an editor on the website? I won't edit on that account again. Thank you. I did not have malicious intent and I enjoy editing on here. I don't want this to ruin my ability to enjoy editing on here. SongingSiren (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay that I remain an editor on here? SongingSiren (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The defense above sounds nice but is a lie. The following accounts are  Confirmed:

• RomanianObserver41 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• RosaSubmarine (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SongingSiren (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MiracleDinner (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ConeflowerDave (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Veni Vidi changed it on Wiki is using a proxy, blocking based on self-admission. Spicy (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merged case, closing. Spicy (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Cblackbu1 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Two years ago, Cblackbu1 (CU1) posted about off Wiki convassing [28], which KlayCax (KC) used this off wiki evidence to edit war [29] [30]. Note that he never filed a report as promised in the edit summary.

This is not the only time that KC or his socks have claimed outside canvassing to edit war [31] [32].

What I find most damning is that two of KC's socks (User:RosaSubmarine, User:MiracleDinner) are LARPing as anti circumcision intactivists, to justify reports on canvassing, which was exactly what CU1 was posting about 2 years ago.

I posted off wiki evidence in the first report on KC, which was later removed because it was OUTING. I am sorry, but the off wiki evidence that I posted 2 years ago is very strong. I'd ask that an admin that can see removed content to please review it in light of all the sockpuppetry that KC has done.

Full disclosure, I do plan on using this to appeal the topic ban that I was given for Outing. If admins are unable to do it, I promise not be upset. But at least an effort was made if this question comes up in the appeal. Thank you.Stix1776 (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Stix1776 (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• The suspected sock has not edited in almost three years. Closing with no action. Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

• TurboSuperA+ (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

I saw this newish editor commenting on some RFCs and the style reminded me of KlayCax. After reviewing their short edit history I noticed this editor has edited the Circumcision article, just like KlayCax. This account started around the same time as KlayCax was blocked. Could be a big coincidence, but maybe not? Nemov (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't I notified of this?! I am not a sockpuppet of KlayCax. Wtf?! TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• Looks a bit like KC. The editing times are a bit different but the interest overlap is pretty clear from the EIA tool. Without BEANSing it, I see other things that lead me to believe this is definitely a NOTNEW worthy of perhaps a CU. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That was my other thought... if it's not KC, it's odd an editor that just started editing a few weeks ago seems so experienced. @Tamzin, if you don't think there's enough here you can just close this out. I'm not gonna dig further. I just saw the circumcision thing and remembered KC. Nemov (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen: Although evidence seems limited, I think a CU with the recent group of socks, confirmed in early January (diff), might be worth considering just to dispel any suspicions. For example, TurboSuperA+ appears to have voted at an RfC at the talk:Australia which was originally initiated by OntologicalTree, where both voted for Option1 (OT, TSA). Their diffs show involvement in discussions about genocide in Australia, a topic that KC socks were interested in. The topic of circumcision and HIV is indeed something that KC was heavily involved in too, random diff.

Nemov, Pbritti, keep in mind that there is a large group of socks (included above in "confirmed, suspected"), with which you can also compare diffs in case of suspicion, particularly OntologicalTree, DerApfelZeit, RomanianObserver etc. Piccco (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piccco: Sorry, I might not be able to contribute more to this in the near future. Very busy off-wiki. If I have a chance, though, I might do a quick diff comparison with quotes tomorrow ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't worry. There's nothing left to do here now, other than CU with the latest socks. Actually, I only mentioned it just so that you'll be aware of it in general. Piccco (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piccco: Taking a break from grading to quickly identify some behavioral similarities:

• Compare TurboSuperA+ with SockPuppets
• Interest in both genital modification and international politics (notable behavioral overlap on Talk:Australia with OntologicalTree and an interest overlap with KlayCax on the same)
• The outspoken nature of TurboSuperA+ on Talk:Gaza, including the creation of new RfCs, aligns directly with KlayCax's activity on that talk page.

The biggest hurdle standing between us and tying TurboSuperA+ to the other socks is the apparent time zone and weekly behavior differences. This does not rule out a sockmaster who is transcontinental—we've seen it before—but I'm hesitant saying that this is a slam dunk behaviorally. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; this account was actually out of my radar, but I reopened the case only because I saw 2/3 editors having mild suspicions. I still can't deny, however, that even the evidence I brought could well be a coincidence. Honestly, I'd be very surprised if this account is a sock, after the multiple socks confirmed in the past months. I also keep in mind that if these account were connected, previous CUs would've normally revealed that (although KC has somehow managed to get away with socking and CU in the past) In any case, I agree with both you and Tamzin that evidence is so far limited. Piccco (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The way things are going, I suspect this won't be an issue much longer. Nemov (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not a sockpuppet account. This is the only account I have on Wikipedia. My IP is residential static and it is easy to look up which ISP it belongs to (F**t***d). I have edited from my phone before, but those IPs will also show up in the same geographic region and all are owned by the same ISP/phone company (O****r). Those looking at my edits will also find that I edited an article on non-english wikipedia and I also created an article referring to non-english sources. So perhaps those who accuse me of sockpuppetry should maybe see if KlayCax's edits show the knowledge of the same three languages. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nemov, I've moved this from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TurboSuperA+ to the alleged sockmaster's SPI page. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• KlayCax has some behavioral tells that I'm not seeing here. That doesn't mean this isn't them—sometimes sockmasters put in more effort to throwing off the scent—but, absent those, I'm going to need more than vibes + has edited about circumcision. @Nemov:  Additional information needed. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:

1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.

• -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed per above, without prejudice against reöpening/rehearing if more detailed evidence is provided. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Piccco: Thank you very much for rescuing this case. I agree that this is a specific and uncommon enough pair of overlapping interests to, in combination with clear not-new-editor behavior, justify a check.  Clerk endorsed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Inconclusive, check doesn't say anything one way or another to me.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Since I've reclosed one of the RfCs Turbo was challenged over, I'll let someone else decide the final disposition here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing. For me, the evidence is insufficient at present. DrKay (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---